Conf  Pam  #640 

DTTlDSQbSZ 


REMARKS 


ON    THE 


POLICY    OF    PROHIBITING 


THK 


EXPORTATION  OF  COTTON. 


BY 


OXE    OF    THE    PEOPLE. 


CHARLESTON : 

STKAM-POWKR  PRESSES  OF  EVANS  *  COGSWKLF., 
No.  3  Broad  and  10.3  East  Bay  Street. 

186L 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 
in  2010  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/remarksonpolicyoOOchar 


THE  COTTON  QUESTION. 
EXPORT   OR   NO    EXPORT. 


No.  I. 

"  Lot  thei'c  be  no  strife  I  pray  thee  between  me  and  thee — for  we  be 
brethren." 

It  oftcns  happens  that  disputaiits  are  nearer  to  each  other 
than  the}^  seem  to  he.  It  is  so  on  the  cotton  question. 
One  writer  insists  that  not  a  hale  of  cotton  shall  he 
exported ;  another  sa^'s  the  export  ought  to  he  permitted 
and  promoted.  They  appear  to  he  in  absolute  opposition 
to  each  other,  hut  they  are  not.  They  refer  to  different 
classes  of  cases.  They  look  on  the  object  from  different 
points  of  view,  and  perhaps  have  onl}'  to  change  places  to 
agree  in  opinion.  If  they  will  not  change  places,  hut  con- 
tinue to  occupy  their  several  stand-points,  they  may  dispute 
forever. 

One  reasoner,  A,  would  prohibit  the  export  of  cotton 
totally.  He  has  in  view  a  class  of  cases  where  vessels  shall 
come  from  Europe  to  our  ports,  in  ballast,  by  collusion 
with  the  Lincoln  Government,  and  carry  away  the  cotton 
crop,  for  the  benefit  of  the  exporters,  directly,  and  indirect- 
ly for  the  advantage  of  the  ISrorthern  States.  The  scheme 
would  suit  them,  but  not  us.  Such  an  arrangement 
woukl  give  England  a  greater  control  over  the  cotton 
market  than  she  has  now.  She  now  imports  for  the 
greater  part  of  Euro})e ;    she   would  then   import  for  the 


North  also.  Instead  of  !N"ew  York  exporting  cotton  to 
Liverpool,  Liverpool  would  export  to  j^ew  York.  This 
mode  of  supply  would  not  be  so  advantageous  to  the 
!N^orth  as  that  heretofore  enjoyed,  but  it  would  be  better 
than  no  supply  at  all.  They  would  willingly  adopt  it. 
But  such  a  trade  would  be  an  intolerable  indignity  to  the 
South.  It  would  be  an  attempt  to  regulate  our  commerce, 
partly  by  enemies,  partly  by  neutrals,  with  no  reference  to 
our  interests  or  opinions.  A  says,  very  justly,  let  us  refuse 
to  submit  for  a  moment  to  any  such  one-sided  traffic,  in 
the  arrangement  of  which  we  are  treated  with  scorn  or 
indifference  by  the  contracting  parties.  Let  us  withhold 
every  bale  of  cotton.  All  sides  will  agree  with  him ;  there 
will  be  no  dissenting  voice. 

B,  on  the  other  hand,  says,  permit  and  encoui'age  the 
export  of  cotton.  He  alludes  to  another  class  of  cases, 
where  a  foreign  merchant  brings  to  our  ports  a  cargo  of 
goods  at  his  own  risk,  in  defiance  of  blockades.  He  de- 
sires to  take  cotton  in  return.  He  wants  that  and  nothing 
else.  Without  it,  he  will  go  home  in  ballast.  A  half  voy- 
age— a  voyage  without  a  return  cargo — will  not  pay  his 
risks.  If  cotton  be  denied  to  him,  his  enterprise  will  be  dis- 
couraged and  crushed.  Shall  it  be  denied  ?  B  thinks  that 
the  merchant,  under  these  circumstances,  should  have  the 
cotton  he  desires.  If  there  be  not  enough  in  port,  a  suffi- 
cient quantity  should  be  brought  from  the  interior  to  meet 
his  wants.  We  should  do  everything  to  encourage  him. 
Such  a  trade  will  come  by  no  arrangement  with  Lincoln  ; 
it  will  go  on  in  spite  of  him.  It  is  not  a  scheme  of  foreign 
Governments;  it  is  the  result  of  private  enterprise.  It 
would  go  farther  and  faster  than  anything  else,  to  induce 
and  compel  the  interposition  of  foreign  States.  They 
would  interfere  to  protect  their  traders.  It  would  bring 
about  this  result  without  fail  and  immediately.  There  is 
every  reason,  then,  for  promoting  such  an  interchange  of 
merchandise,  and  none  against  it.  It  is  probable  that  all 
parties,  A  among  the  rest,  would  agree  readily  to  this  opin- 
ion.    But  if  not,  why  not? 


The  only  reason  assigned  for  refusing  absolute!}"  to  ex- 
port cotton  is,  that  by  refusing  we  shall  enforce  a  recog- 
nition of  the  Southern  Confederacy  by  foreign  States. 
But  recognition  and  the  export  of  cotton  for  foreign  goods 
are  two  distinct  things.  They  have  no  necessary  connec- 
tion. It  would  be  a  mistake,  a  })olitical  blunder,  to  con- 
found them.  One  is  a  question  of  courtes}-,  the  other  of 
trade.  International  law  permits  the  recognition  of  new 
States,  but  does  not  enjoin  it.  It  is  a  right  but  not  a  duty. 
If  a  people,  from  no  unfriendly  motive,  but  consulting 
their  own  interests  merel}'.  neglect  or  refuse  to  recognize  a 
rising  State,  they  aftbrd  no  adequate  cause  for  complaint. 
The  interchange  of  ambassadors  is  a  common  courtesy 
among  States;  but  the  neglect  of  one  nation  to  send  a 
minister  to  another  is  not  a  hostile  or  even  an  unfriendly 
act.     There  may  be  adequate  reasons  for  delay. 

If  recognition  be  a  matter  of  international  courtesy,  it  is 
not  to  be  coerced.  We  should  neither  seek  it  eagerly,  nor 
attempt  to  force  it.  When  voluntarily  offered,  we  may 
freely  accept  it.  We  may  even  address  reasons  in  a  proper 
manner  to  foreign  States,  to  expedite  the  proceeding  by 
showing  how  it  would  promote  their  welfare.  But  to  go 
beyond  this,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  retaliatory  measures 
of  another  kind,  would  be  consistent  with  neither  right  nor 
self-respect.  Certainlj-,  it  cannot  be  the  wish  of  a  high- 
minded  people  to  constrain  by  forcible  means  an  act  of 
respect  from  a  foreign  Power,  which  it  has  a  right  to 
bestow  or  refuse,  without  giving  just  cause  of  offence.  We 
should  neither  compel  nor  supplicate.  Courtesy  enforced 
is  worthless.  Courtesy  petitioned  for  is  equally  without 
value.  We  seem  nevertheless  to  desire  both.  A\^e  send 
our  incipient  ambassadors  to  Europe,  offering  civilities 
before  we  receive  them  ;  and  we  threaten  foreign  nations 
with  certain  contingencies  in  the  cotton  trade  if  our  vol- 
unteered courtes}-  is  not  properly  received. 

If  we  have  a  product  of  such  potency  in  commerce  as  to 
oblige  other  nations  to  come  to  us  and  seek  it,  we  may 
thank  Heaven  for  the  advautaa:e  and  use  it  for  the  leo-iti- 


6 

mate  purposes  of  trade.  Put  to  convert  it  into  a  wjeapon 
for  compelling  foreign  States  to  pursue  a  certain  line  of 
policy  not  agreeable  to  tliem ;  to  threaten  certain  conse- 
quences if  tliey  refuse  ;  to  say  to  England:  ISTo  recognition, 
no  cotton ;  no  cotton  and  your  mills  'svill  stop,  your  opera- 
tives will  starve,  your  people  will  rebel,  your  Government 
be  in  danger  of  overthrow  and  your  society  of  anarchy; 
this  would  be  to  use  our  s-reat  commercial  advantao;e  in  an 
improper,  wrongful,  unfriendly  and  hostile  manner.  We 
should  not  conciliate  good  will,  but  provoke  enmit}'. 

But  while  our  commissioners  abroad  administer  altera- 
tives or  stimulants  to  European  courts,  and  we  at  home 
brandish  over  the  heads  of  foreign  States  the  scalpel  of 
commercial  necessities:  while  we  pursue  these  different 
modes  of  curative  treatment  with  other  countries,  we  are 
in  absolute  want  of  the  most  important  articles  of  con- 
sumption among  ourselves.  We  require  supplies  of  arms, 
ammunition,  clothing,  blankets,  shoes,  medicine  and  other 
things  for  our  troops  and  laborers.  AYe  want,  in  a  word, 
to  exchange  cotton  for  foreign  goods.  It  is  essential  to  the 
people's  comfort  and  convenience,  and  to  the  prosperous 
management  of  the  war.  We  need  the  supplies,  and  must 
make  the  barter.  It  is  a  question  concerning  our  own 
absolute  wants,  and  the  necessities  of  our  armies  and 
laborers.  Goods  are  brought  to  our  doors  on  condition 
that  we  supply  to  the  importers  an  adequate  return  of 
cotton.  Shall  w^e  withhold  it?  Shall  we  oppose  a  traffic 
essential  to  our  well-being,  because  the  Government  of  the 
merchant  who  offers  the  trade  is  not  yet  pleased  to  say  to 
the  world  that  we  are  an  independent  people?  We  would 
accept  the  trade,  not  with  any  reference  to  the  advantage 
of  others,  but  altogether  for  our  own.  We  need  the  trade 
at  once;  we  may  take  recognition  whenever  it  happens  to 
come. 

What  is  this  recognition  to  which  we  attach  so  much 
importance  as  to  be  ready  to  beg  it  on  the  one  hand  and 
coerce  it  on  the  other?  We  are  already  an  independent 
people;    no   recognition  on  the  right  or  on  the  left  will 


make  us  more  or  less  so.  Recognition  would  not  add  a 
man  to  our  armies  or  a  dollar  to  our  treasury.  It  will  not 
involve  the  necessary  opening  of  our  ports  ?  If  the  Con- 
federac}^  were  recognized  to-morrow,  the  question  of  block- 
ade would  remain  unchansred.  Foreign  nations  demand 
now  that  the  blockade  shall  be  efhcient;  they  would  do  no 
more  if  recognition  were  announced  by  France  and  Eng- 
land. The  question  .of  recognition  has  no  immediate  con- 
nection with  the  opt^ning  of  the  ports,  and  none  with  the 
barter  of  cotton  for  goods  imported  in  foreign  ships.  If  it 
were  otherwise — if,  as  soon  as  the  Confederacy  was  recog- 
nized, our  ports  would  be  thrown  open  as  a  necessary  con- 
sequence, there  might  be  some  show  of  reason  for  holding 
our  cotton  in  expectation  of  the  event.  But  since  recogni- 
tion may  leave  us  just  where  it  tinds  us,  why  delay? 
"What  is  there  in  any  recognition  of  so  much  consequence 
as  to  forbid  us  at  once  to  bu}^  the  goods  we  want  for  the 
cotton  which  we  produce  to  sell.  Recognition,  at  best, 
could  only  give  us  the  trade  Avhich  the  foreign  merchant 
offers  without  it.  Why  wait  for  six  months  or  a  year  for 
what  we  may  have  at  once?  The  trade  may  involve  a  risk, 
but  the  risk  is  not  ours. 

Trade  is  ruled  by  certain  general  laws.  We  cannot 
abrogate  or  materially  change  them.  If  we  attempt  to 
place  commercial  intercourse  between  States  on  any  un- 
natural basis  at  variance  with  the  great  principles  b}'' 
Avhich  it  is  governed,  we  shall  fail  in  the  attempt.  Cotton 
is  no  exception  to  the  rule  that  applies  to  all  products 
alike.  It  is  a  great  interest,  but  it  must  obey  the  laws  that 
regulate  commercial  exchanges.  Any  forcible  interference 
with  the  broad,  natural  stream  of  trade  is  a  delicate  and 
dangerous  operation,  at  all  times,  with  any  people,  for  any 
purpose.  The  prospects  of  cotton  loans  and  total  non-ex- 
portation under  all  circumstances  are  empirical  schemes  of 
doubtful  issue,  and  yet  more  doubtful  principle.  They 
savor  of  stock-jobbing  expedients  and  the  devices  of  small 
attorneys  accustomed  to  the  tricks  and  subterfuges  of  spe- 
cial pleading,  rather  than  the  broad,  comprehensive  views 


8 

of  a  vigorous  and  practical  statesmanship.  It  would  be 
better,  I  believe,  if  our  Government  at  Richmond  would 
sweep  away  their  projects  and  expedients,  and  adopt  in 
their  stead  a  wide,  liberal,  intelligible,  commercial  policy. 
Let  us  throw  open  out  ports  to  the  commerce  of  the  world, 
without  duties,  limitation  or  restriction  of  any  kind  for 
one  full  year,  with  promises  of  future  commercial  treaties 
to  all  friendly  States  who  shall  engage  heartil}'  in  the 
trade.  Let  us  try  the  virtues  of  free  trade,  of  which  we 
have  been  so  long  talking — for  which  we  severed  the 
L^nion,  but  on  which  we  have  resolutely  turned  our  backs 
heretofore  in  our  new  Confederacy.  We  clamored  for  it 
until  we  could  command  it,  and  then  forgot  all  about  it. 
Away  with  the  speculations  of  experiment  mongers,  and 
give  us  the  measures  of  men  and  statesmen.  Give  us  free 
trade,  and  we  care  not  a  sixpence  for  the  formal  bow  of 
recognition  from  foreign  nations.  They  may  make  it  at 
their  leisure.  It  may  be  an  important  thing  for  gentlemen 
expecting  foreign  appointments ;  it  is  worth  little  else. 
But  if  never  so  valuable,  and  I  desired  it  never  so  much,  I 
would  seek  it  in  the  mode  suggested,  as  the  readiest  and 
most  certain  way  to  obtain  it. 

There  is  no  reason,  then,  against  the  exchange  in  our 
ports  of  cotton  for  foreign  goods.  Our  great  object  is  to 
open  our  ports  to  general  trade.  The  barter  proposed 
would  serve  the  purpose  to  a  certain  extent.  It  would 
tend  to  bring  about  the  recognition  which  is  considered  so 
important.  Above  all,  we  want  supplies  of  merchandise, 
and  must  have  them.  To  obtain  them,  we  must  furnish 
an  adequate  quantity  of  cotton.  To  this  mode,  therefore, 
of  exporting  cotton,  there  can  be  no  sufficient  objection. 


No.  II. 
I  have  endeavored,  in  a  former  number,  to  show  that  the 
foreign  merchant,  importing  a  cargo  of  merchandise  into  a 
Southern  port,  should  be  allowed  to  export  a  cargo  of  cot- 


9 

ton  in  return — that  sucli  a  traffic  should  be  encouraged  as 
beneficial  and  necessary.  But  if  the  foreign  trader  is  per- 
mitted to  bring  us  goods  and  take  away  cotton,  shall  we 
debar  the  enterprising  merchant  at  home  from  the  same 
privilege  ?  Shall  we  refuse  to  our  citizens  what  we  con- 
cede to  strangers  ?  If  the  home  merchant  is  adventurous 
enough  to  bring  us  goods  from  France  or  England,  shall 
we  hamper  and  embarrass  his  enterprise  ?  Shall  we  not 
rather  applaud  and  assist  it?  There  can  be  but  one  answer 
to  the  question.  We  must  rejoice  at  his  success  and  en- 
deavor to  promote  it.  To  do  otherwise  would  be  unjust  to 
him  and  impolitic  for  the  country.  In  the  American  Rev- 
olution the  enterprise  of  the  merchant  sustained  the  Re- 
public. We  hailed  the  arrival  of  the  Bermuda,  lately,  with 
exultation.  It  was  a  triumph,  a  victory  over  the  enemy. 
Shall  we  cripple  her  enterprise  by  refusing  a  cargo  of 
cotton  ? 

There  is  yet  another  class  of  cases  in  the  export  of  cot- 
ton, a  class  in  which  no  goods  are  brought  to  our  ports ; 
but  the  foreign  merchant  comes  with  coin  instead  of  mer- 
chandise. For  many  years  a  trade  of  growing  importance 
has  been  carried  on  by  Spanish  vessels  in  Southern  ports. 
These  vessels  take  cargoes  of  goods  from  Barcelona  to 
Cuba,  sell  their  cargoes  and  proceed  to  New  Orleans,  Sa- 
vannah or  Charleston,  with  the  amount  of  their  sales  in 
doul)loons,  to  purchase  cotton  for  their  manufacturers  at 
home.  They  would  prefer  to  bring  us  the  sugar,  coffee 
and  molasses  of  Cuba,  but  thej'  have  been  prevented  by 
our  laws.  They  bring  their  gold,  therefore.  Shall  we 
refuse  it?  Shall  we  withhold  the  cotton  for  which  alone 
they  come,  and  for  which  their  doubloons  are  brought? 
It  may  be  said,  the}'  will  soon  export  for  other  parties. 
They  will  export  the  Avhole  cotton  crop.  Suppose  they  do. 
They  will  only  convince  us  that,  place  the  cotton  export  in 
any  position  we  please,  the  power  of  cotton  will  be  very 
much  the  same.  We  need  not  wrangle  about  this  or  that 
arrangement,  the  result,  in  every  case,  will  be  nearly  equal. 
Sui)pose  that  the  Spanish  trade  of  coin  for  cotton  should 


10 

grow  to  tlie  magnitude  suggested,  and  that  it  carried  away 
our  cotton  for  all  Europe.  The  Spaniard  must  then  bring 
us  the  coin  of  all  Europe.  He  must  gather  it  from  all 
nations  and  send  it  to  our  ports.  We  should  monopolize 
the  specie  of  the  world.  The  movement  of  coin  would  be 
like  the  tracks  of  cattle  at  the  cave's  mouth  of  Virsril's 
robber — all  coming  in  and  none  going  out.  It  would  dis- 
turb the  commercial  balances  of  all  nations.  We  should 
be  masters  of  their  fortunes.  The  only  remedy  for  the 
evil  on  their  part  would  be  to  bring  their  goods  to  our 
ports  to  regain  a  portion  of  their  coin.  The  operation 
would  be  a  little  more  circuitous,  but  the  end  would  be  the 
same.  It  would  ensure  open  ports  quite  as  certainly  as 
any  other  mode  of  proceeding,  and  that,  too,  with  no 
shadow  of  attempt  by  the  Confederate  States  to  establish 
what  might  be  deemed  a  coercive  polic}'  by  other  nations. 
It  should  be  our  care  to  avoid  such  a  policy  for  many 
reasons.  Among  others,  because  it  is  problematical,  after 
all,  whether  we  can  coerce  foreign  nations  into  particular 
measures  by  keeping  our  cotton  in  our  barns.  It  may  be 
so,  but  who  can  say  that  it  must  or  will  be  so  ?  There  is 
no  man,  Secretary  or  President,  whose  departure  from  his 
place  would  leave  a  moment's  gap  in  the  world's  existence. 
I  doubt  if  there  be  an  interest  that  may  not  be  stricken 
from  tlie  catalogue  of  human  pursuits  with  equal,  or  nearly 
equal  indiiference  to  the  future.  American  cotton  is  a 
great  object  in  the  world's  eye,  and  the  phrase  "  Cotton  is 
King,"  has  been  repeated  so  often  that  we  attach  to  it  the 
power  imputed  of  old  to  an  incantation,  and  indulge  in 
vague,  and,  perhaps,  extravagant  notions  of  its  efficacy. 
Yet,  a  hundred  years  ago,  the  world  was  prosperous  and 
happy  without  American  cotton,  and  it  is  possible  that  it 
may  be  prosperous  and  happy  without  it  a  hundred  j-ears 
hence.  Whatever  the  cotton  power  may  be,  it  needs,  like 
every  other  human  advantage,  to  be  temperatel}^  and  dis- 
creetly managed.  Let  us  indulge  in  no  rash  or  unneces- 
sary experiments  on  its  strength.  Lot  us  provoke  no 
needless  hostility  by  using  it  to  settle  questions  that  tmist  he 


11 

decided  hy  the  usages  solely  of  international  lair.  We  sliould 
rather  husband  its  energies  carefullj,  and  not  expose  it  to 
forced  competitions  without  necessity.  Let  us  not  forget 
that  if  cotton  is  king  over  the  world,  it  is  equall}^  king- 
over  ourselves,  and  governs  our  fortunes  as  well  as  the  for- 
tunes of  the  rest  of  mankind.  It  rules  abroad  by  one  ne- 
cessity, and  at  home  b}'  another.  If  in  other  countries 
they  are  compelled  to  buy  it,  in  our  own  we  arc  equally 
obliged  to  sell  it.  Who  w'ould  cultivate  cotton  to  lock  it 
up  only  in  his  warehouse  ? 

It  has  been  objected  to  the  export  of  cotton  in  any  way  ; 
that,  if  exported  at  all,  it  would  find  its  way  to  the  enemy's 
ports.  But  it  is  impossible  to  provide  against  every  con- 
tingency and  possibility  of  trade.  You  canyot  stop  all  the 
currents  and  eddies  of  commerce,  any  more  than  you  cau 
arrest  the  flow  and  dam  up  the  outlets  of  the  great  West- 
ern river.  An  army  of  coast  police  and  all  the  dexterity 
of  custom  house  detectives,  could  not  prevent  smuggling 
between  France  and  England.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  for 
a  moment  that  the  whole  commercial  policy  of  the  South 
is  to  be  settled  or  modified  by  so  small  an  event  as  the  pos- 
sible arrival  of  a  lot  of  cotton,  by  a  circuitous  route,  in 
Boston  or  JSTew  York.  That  would  be  to  repeat  the  extrav- 
agance of  the  Witch  in  ^Esop,  who  stopped  by  her  spells 
the  sun  and  moon  in  their  courses  to  protect  her  little  dog 
from  a  threatened  danger.  The  possible  damage  is  too 
small  for  consideration.  Are  we  to  arrest  the  great  flood 
of  commercial  enterprise  for  so  trivial  a  possibility  ? 

To  guard  against  the  danger  of  cotton  finding  its  way  to 
the  enemy,  and  to  provide  exchanges  of  trade  for  foreign 
goods,  it  has  been  suggested  to  export  rice,  sugar,  tobacco, 
naval  stores,  without  restriction,  while  we  keep  our  cotton 
at  home.  An}'  sv>ch  discriminating  policy  in  the  export  of 
our  agricultural  productions  would  be  ruinous  and  abso- 
lutely inadmissible,  as  I  Avill  hereafter  show.  If  the  possi- 
ble arrival  of  a  parcel  of  cotton  in  the  enemy's  ports  is  a 
suflicieut  reason  for  shutting  it  up  in  our  barns,  the  reason 
will  apply  with  equal  force  to  all  other  productions.     Can 


12 

any  man  believe  that  rice,  sugar,  tobacco,  naval  stores, 
will  fail  to  find  their  way  to  the  jSTorthcrn  States,  if  suf- 
fered to  be  freely  exported  ?  Are  we  not  already  informed 
that  naval  stores  sent  to  ISTova  Scotia  from  North  Carolina, 
are  regularly  transshipped  from  Halifax  to  New  York. 
They  are  quite  as  indispensable  to  the  shipping  interest,  as 
cotton  is  to  the  manufacturer.  Every  Southern  product 
will  find  its  way  to  Northern  ports  as  certainly  as  cotton. 
If  to  avoid  this  contingency  we  refuse  to  export  cotton,  we 
must  ecpially  refuse  to  export  ever^'thing  else.  We  must 
take  up  the  Japanese  system  of  no  trade  whatever,  just 
when  the  people  of  Japan  have  become  wise  enough  to  lay 
it  aside. 

It  has  been  urged  that  the  question  of  non-exportation  of 
cotton  is  already  settled  by  general  consent,  and  should 
not,  therefore,  be  re-opened.  The  circulars  of  factors  are 
appealed  to  as  evidence  of  the  fact.  I  deny  the  whole 
statement.  The  circulars  can  have  no  such  meaning  if 
confined  to  their  legitimate  purpose.  If  they  had,  they 
would  prove  nothing.  The  true  object  of  the  circulars  was 
to  advise  planters  to  refrain  from  sending  their  cotton  to 
the  sea-ports  as  they  have  been  accustomed  to  do.  If  it 
were  sent  as  usual,  large  stocks  would  accumulate  in  com- 
paratively exposed  places,  and  invite  assault  and  plunder 
from  the  enemy.  On  this  point  the  fiictor  could  [)roperly 
speak.  It  concerns  him  personally.  The  accumulated 
stocks  would  be  under  his  care  and  keeping.  In  this 
matter  he  was  a  fitting  adviser  of  the  planter.  But  he  is 
not  the  planter's  guide  in  political  aft'airs.  On  the  broad 
question  of  non-exportation  for  reasons  of  State,  the  factors 
would  as  little  think  of  issuing  circulars  of  advice  as  they 
would  on  the  comparative  merits  of  two  candidates  for  the 
Presidency.  I  acquit  them  of  any  such  purpose  or  desire. 
But  if  it  were  otherwise,  and  all  the  factors  in  the  country 
intended  to  ofter  their  advice  where  it  would  have  been 
out  of  place,  their  circulars  would  go  a  very  little  way  to 
prove  that  the  great  cotton-growing  community  were  ready 
to  be  advised.     They  may,  to    a  man,  be  of  an  opposite 


13 

opinion,  and  willing  to  exchange  their  cotton  for  specie 
or  goods,  the  circulars  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
What  do  the  planters  and  the  Government  mean  hy  the 
Cotton  Loan?  Does  not  the  Loan  contemplate  a  sale?  A 
sale  implies  a  purchaser.  Who  are  to  be  the  purchasers? 
Is  the  Government  to  buy — and  thus  become  a  huge  cotton 
broker  in  defiance  of  all  the  maxims  of  political  economy 
hitherto  received  among  nations — or  did  the  planters,  in 
lending  their  cotton,  count  upon  a  sale  of  it  to  foreign 
nations?  Without  this  as  a  component  part  of  the  scheme, 
the  whole  plan  would  be  impracticable. 


^0.  III. 


I  ha^e  treated  the  question  of  non-exportation  of  cotton 
as  a  voluntary  arrangement  on  the  part  of  the  people.  In 
this  view  of  the  subject,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
the  cotton  planters  would  be  opposed  to  an  exchange  of 
cotton  for  goods  brought  to  our  ports  in  foreign  ships. 
There  is  as  little  cause  for  concluding  that  they  would 
refuse  to  sell  their  crops  for  specie,  introduced  in  the  same 
wa}'.  If  the  reverse  be  true,  and  total  non-exportation  is 
to  be  the  established  policy  of  the  South,  the  policy  must 
not  be  partial ;  it  must  include  all  our  productions.  To 
suppose  that  the  cotton  planter  will  consent  to  keep  his 
produce  is  his  barn,  while  everything  else  is  freely  export- 
ed, is  to  suppose  him  a  simpleton.  Why  should  he  keep 
it?  Cotton  is  the  most  eligible  article  of  export.  It  will 
be  sought  for  most  generally.  It  is  not  a  jot  more  certain 
to  find  its  way  into  the  enemy's  ports  than  naval  stores, 
rice,  sugar  or  tobacco.  If  the  cotton  crop  is  to  be  retained, 
to  enforce  recognition  by  foreign  States,  whj'  not  retain 
every  other  production  for  the  same  purpose?  Other  pro- 
ducts are  as  necessary  as  cotton  to  the  world's  well-being, 
or  nearly  so.  The  fieets  of  the  enemy  are  at  this  moment 
fitted  out  with  the  naval  stores  procured  from  North  Caro- 
lina.    Everything   or   nothing  should  be  the  principle  of 


14 

the  voluntarj  system  of  non-exportation.  If  attempted  in 
any  other  form  it  must  faiL  It  wouki  be  an  injnstiee  and 
wrong.  If  the  cotton  ph^nter  submits  to  a  discrimination 
of  any  kind  against  his  own  great  staple,  it  would  be 
fatuity,  not  patriotism.  lie  would  deserve  a  cap  and  bells, 
not  the  civic  crown  of  public  virtue. 

But  the  question  of  export  and  discrimination  presents 
another  view  of  the  subject — a  view  involving  a  thousand 
evils  and  dangers  to  the  whole  country.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  the  arrangement  shall  be  no  longer  voluntary; 
that  an  embargo  shall  be  imposed  on  cotton  exclusively,  by 
the  Confederate  Government.  The  proposition  has  been 
discussed  at  Richmond  already.  It  may  be  resumed  in  a 
few  days.  Against  any  suck  measure,  against  any  suck 
one-sided  exertion  of  unautkorized  power,  I  protest  witk 
all  tke  strengtk  and  earnestness  of  a  tkorougk  conviction 
of  its  disastrous  consequences.  I  protest  against  *t  as  a 
policy  unjust  and  dangerous,  offensive  to  neutrals  abroad, 
partial  and  ruinous  at  kome.  Suppose  it  to  be  once  estab- 
lisked,  will  it  not  scatter  tke  seeds  of  discontent  and  dissen- 
sion inevitably  among  tke  various  agricultural  interests  of 
the  Soutkern  States?  To  tkink  otkerwise  would  betray  a 
disreo-ard  or  foro-etfulness  of  tke  strongest  traits  of  our 
common  nature.  Reflect,  for  a  moment,  kow  tke  scheme 
would  operate;  how  it  must  operate  among  men  jealous  of 
their  rights  and  interests.  The  producers  of  rice,  sugar, 
tobacco,  naval  stores,  will  sell  their  productions  at  good 
prices,  at  prices  advanced  for  the  very  reasons  that  these 
products,  in  the  absence  of  cotton,  will  be  the  only  articles 
of  exchange  for  foreign  goods.  They  will  have  a  com- 
mand of  money.  The  cotton  grower  will  have  none.  In 
the  depressed  state  of  the  mailcet  for  lands,  negroes, 
houses,  the  producers  alone  of  exported  articles  will  be 
able  to  buy.  They  will  buy  at  reduced  prices.  The  cot- 
ton planter  can  purchase  nothing.  He  must  dispose  of 
something  to  pay  his  taxes  and  defray  his  current  ex- 
penses, lie  may  be  obliged  to  sell  to  his  more  fortunate 
neighbor   houses,    farm,    negroes.       The    makers   of   rice, 


15 

sugar,  tobacco,  naval  stores,  may  buy  tbe  cotton  of  tlie 
cotton  planter  for  a  small  amount  comparatively,  and  keep 
it  in  their  warehouses  for  a  rise  in  prices.  They  may  pur- 
chase the  cotton-negro  for  half  his  value,  the  cotton-farm 
for  a  great  deal  less.  This  would  be  the  necessary  result 
of  the  policy  proposed.  It  would  be  idle  to  say  that  to 
reason  in  this  manner  is  to  sow  dissension  among  dilierent 
interests.  It  is  the  proposed  embargo  that  will  sow  dis- 
sension. We  cannot  escape  the  evnl  consequences  of  a  bad 
measure  by  shutting  our  eyes  to  them,  if  we  shut  our  eyes 
never  so  closely.  It  is  certain  that  an  embargo  on  cotton 
exclusively  cannot  be  tolerated  by  the  cotton  planter.  It 
is  quite  as  certain  that  no  planter  whatever,  of  any  kind, 
would  advocate  a  one-sided  measure  to  the  prejudice  of  his 
neighbors,  such  as  this  would  be. 

But  suppose  an  impossibility — suppose  that  all  parties 
were  agreed  to  adopt  an  embargo  on  cotton,  where  would 
the  Confederate  Government  get  the  right  to  impose  it? 
The  mere  assent  of  the  people,  even  if  unanimously  given, 
can't  impart  it.  The  Constitution  must  confer  it,  or  it  is 
not  within  the  powers  of  the  Government.  It  is  proposed 
to  lay  an  embargo  on  the  great  product  of  the  South,  in 
order  to  enforce  a  recognition  of  the  Confederacy  by  foreign 
States.  Point  out  the  article  in  our  Southern  Constitution 
that  gives  any  such  power,  for  any  such  purpose.  There  is 
none.  It  would  be  usurpation  as  gross  as  any  perpetrated 
by  Lincoln's  Government.  It  would  assume  over  the 
property  of  the  citizen  what  the  suspension  of  habeas  corpus 
asserts  over  his  person — a  power  not  authorized  by  the 
Constitution,  limited  by  the  discretion  only  of  the  Govern- 
ment, directed  to  the  same  pretended  object,  the  necessities 
of  the  State  and  the  public  benefit.  Are  we  preparing  to 
imitate  the  proceedings  and  endorse  the  despotic  maxims 
of  the  Government  at  Washington — to  sail  with  them 
under  the  roving  colors  of  State  expediency,  for  the  rob- 
bery of  civil  and  political  rights?  Under  what  color  of 
right  is  this  to  be  done  ? 

The  Government  at  Washington  has  been  accustomed  to 


16 

claim  the  power  to  do  what  it  pleased  under  the  plea  of 
advancing"  "  the  general  welfare."  They  picked  out  a 
phrase  from  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution  and  made  it 
cover  more  ground  than  the  whole  Constitution  besides. 
Its  articles  and  sections  give  certain  specified  powers,  but 
the  words  which  empower  the  Government  "  to  promote 
the  general  welfare,"  bestows  all  power  whatever.  To  pro- 
mote the  general  welfare  is  to  do  everything  that  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Government  may  judge  to  be  fit  and  proper. 
Under  this  phrase,  it  gave  away  the  public  lands,  dug 
canals,  made  roads,  distributed  bounties  to  fishermen 
directly,  and  indirectly  to  cotton  spinners,  diggers  of  coal, 
makers  of  salt,  publishers  of  books,  forgers  of  iron,  to 
everybody,  in  short,  of  the  Northern  States  who  had  influ- 
ence enough  to  command  a  dozen  votes  at  a  party  election. 
Under  the  power  to  make  war,  it  made  roads.  It  passed 
laws  of  embargo  and  non-intercourse,  and  destroj^ed  all 
commerce,  under  the  pretence  of  regulating  commercial 
intercourse  with  foreign  nations.  But,  with  a  deep  con- 
viction of  the  abuses  perpetrated  under  this  doctrine  and 
practice,  the  Southern  Confederacy  has  excluded  the  phrase 
altogether.  It  has  been  solemnly  condemned  as  the  parent 
of  lies,  and  thrust  out  from  the  new  Constitution  disgraced 
and  branded.  On  what  new  peg  are  our  politicians  de- 
signing to  hang  their  vague,  loose  glosses  and  interpreta- 
tions, in  reference  to  their  delegated  powers  ?  We  ask  in 
vain.  We  are  not  permitted  to  know.  Our  sessions  of 
Congress  are  all  secret.  The  concealment  which  may  have 
been  expedient  in  the  early  part  only  of  their  proceedings, 
seems  to  have  grown  into  a  settled  s^tem.  The  people 
are  shut  out  from  all  knowledge  of  the  sayings  and  doings 
of  their  representatives.  The  continuation  of  this  secret 
session  sj^stem  is  becoming  an  abuse,  and  deserves  the  de- 
nunciation of  the  people.  It  destroys  all  responsibility. 
The  members  of  Congress  may  be  as  trustworthy  as  any 
one,  but  no  one  is  to  be  trusted  in  perpetual  secret  session. 
I  would  as  readily  confide  in  a  Venetian  Council  of  ten,  or 
an  English  Star  Chamber,  or  a  Spanish  Inquisition,  as  in  a 


17 

Congress  setting  under  the  safe  coucoalment  of  lock  and 
key.  Until  this  system  of  secrecy  is  abandoned,  \<-e  shall 
not  he  able  to  understand  on  what  new  pretext  our  repre- 
sentatives may  claim  the  power  to  do  what  the  Constitu- 
tion confers  no  right  of  doing.  Their  old  plea  has  been 
taken  away.  The  people  have  refused  to  impose  on  their 
agents  tlic  burthen  of  promoting  the  "general  welfare"  at 
their  discretion.  What  device  will  our  politicians  next 
contrive  as  a  substitute  for  a  false  pretence  so  convenient 
to  the  Lincoln  Government;  so  proliiic  of  all  sorts  of  vil- 
lainous abuses,  and  so  thoroughly  condemned  and  re[)U- 
diated  bj^  the  Southern  Convention? 


No.  IV. 

I  have  said,  in  my  last  number,  that  the  pretence  set  up 
by  the  old  Government  of  doing  what  it  pleased  to  pro- 
mote "the  general  welflire"  has  been  condemned,  in  the 
new,  as  a  fountain  of  shams  and  falsehoods;  a  stalking 
horse  for  every  seliish  schemer  who  may  be  hunting  his 
own  petty  interests  at  the  public  expense.  I  have  asked 
what  fresh  contrivance  for  assuming  powers  not  delegated 
by  the  people  is  to  be  put  together  in  the  secret  sessions  of 
the  Confederate  Congress.  If  our  representatives  lay  an 
embargo  on  cotton,  they  will  inform  us  at  their  leisure  on 
what  article  of  the  Constitution  they  rely  for  thus  interfer- 
ing with  the  industrial  pursuits  of  their  constituents.  In 
the  meantime,  I  venture  the  conjecture  that  we  shall  be 
told  they  are  consulting  and  deciding  with  the  purest 
intentions  for  the  public  good,  the  benefit  of  the  country, 
the  necessities  of  the  State.  There  is  no  mistaking  the 
road  of  those  who  are  seeking  to  enlarge  the  powers  of 
Government.  "We  may  trace  them  as  the  hound  tracks 
the  deer.  Every  usurpation  ever  attempted  in  ancient  or 
niodern  times  has  been  for  the  public  good,  for  the  State's 
advancement  or  security.  Only  give  the  politician  this 
footing  to  stand  upon,  and  he  will  move  the  political  world 
2 


18 

at  his  pleasure.  But  what  is  this  public  good  or  State 
necessity  but  the  old  evil,  the  exorcised  fiend,  returning  in 
another  form?  What  is  it  but  the  "general  welfare"  in  a 
new  dress?  I  deny  that  the  good  of  the  country  requires, 
or  is  consistent  with,  a  departure  from  the  fundamental 
maxims  of  civil  and  political  libert3\  These  maxims  with 
us  are  a  rigidly  strict  construction  of  delegated  power  and 
the  constant  responsibility  of  the  public  servant.  There 
can  be  no  responsibility  in  secret  sessions.  The  proceed- 
ings of  Congress  must  be  open  to  the  public  eye.  There  is 
no  other  guarantee  for  the  honesty  of  the  representative. 
If  he  seeks  to  evade  it,  he  should  be  marked  for  distrust. 
"Without  open  sessions,  the  representative  will  become  a 
subservient  tool  to  the  dispenser  of  official  loaves  and 
fishes.  Without  strict  construction,  the  Constitution,  like 
that  of  the  United  States,  will  be  a  worthless  piece  of 
waste  paper,  the  sport  of  politicians  and  lawyers,  who  will 
infer  any  power  they  wish  from  any  article  in  the  instru- 
ment. 

It  seems  to  be  the  fate  of  the  great  cotton  interest  of  the 
country  to  be  forever  the  sport  of  Government,  used  and 
perverted  by  adverse  interests  and  political  parties.  The 
prominent  evil  of  the  South  has  been  heretofore,  for  years 
past,  this  unauthorized  intermeddling  of  Government  with 
her  great  commercial  staple.  What  was  the  whole  tariff' 
system  of  the  United  States,  but  an  indirect  and  unjustifi- 
able interposition  of  Congressional  legislation  between  the 
cotton-grower  and  his  customers?  The  legitimate  current 
of  trade  was  forced  aside  by  law  to  enable  New  England  to 
establish  her  cotton  manufactures.  It  was  all  for  the 
public  good  before  as  it  is  at  present.  It  is  now,  to  coerce 
a  recognition  of  the  country's  independence  by  foreign 
nations;  it  was  then,  to  coerce  our  independence  of  for- 
eign nations,  financially,  by  a  system  of  domestic  manu- 
factures. The  regular  trade  of  the  cotton-grower  was 
embarrassed  and  injured  for  this  purpose.  A  drain  on  the 
prosperity  of  the  South  succeeded.  Southern  progress 
was  retarded.     We  were  fast  becoming  mere  appendages 


19 

of  the  I^ortliern  States,  Yet  they  impeded  only  the  course 
of  the  cotton  trade  abroad;  our  Government  embargo 
would  stop  it  altogether.  The  Northern  manufacturers 
may  have  desired  to  do  the  same  thing,  but  they  were  not 
bold  or  strong  enough  to  attempt  the  experiment.  It  may 
remain  for  the  Southern  Confederacy  to  say  to  the  cotton 
planter,  you  shall  not  sell  your  produce  at  all.  Eveiy 
other  farmer  may  export  his  crop,  but  yours  must  remain 
in  your  barns.  AVe  have  no  power  delegated  to  us  by  the 
Constitution  to  order  this,  it  is  true,  but  there  are  impor- 
tant reasons  of  State  for  it,  and  abundant  passages  in  the 
Constitution  from  which  we  can  infer  it.  The  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  construed  the  power  to  make 
roads  out  of  the  war-making  j^ower,  and  the  right  to  arrest 
all  commercial  intercourse  with  the  world  and  establish 
monopolies  at  home,  from  the  right  to  regulate  trade. 
Can  we  follow  a  more  illustrious  example  ? 

But  if  the  politician  is  allowed  to  meddle  with  the 
cotton  crop  for  one  political  reason,  how  long  will  it  be 
before  another  and  another  arises?  If  the  Confederate 
Government  uses  cotton  for  enforcing  recognition,  why  not 
for  enforcing  the  removal  of  the  blockade?  ^Tiy  not  for 
obtaining  aid  of  men,  money,  arms  and  ammunition?  "We 
seem  to  think  it  can  do  anything.  If  this  war  is  to  be 
fought  with  cotton,  why  not  other  wars  ?  "Wliat  is  to  be  the 
future  position  of  the  cotton  planter  ?  Is  his  crop  to  be  a 
sort  of  public  property,  and  he  an  operative  for  the  general 
benefit?  Is  he  to  be  the  perpetual  sport  of  politicians  and 
parties?  The  whole  scheme  is  at  variance  with  the  rights 
of  the  citizen  and  the  plainest  principles  of  political  econ- 
omy. It  belongs  to  times  and  States  when  laws  were 
passed  to  prohibit  the  export  of  wool  and  of  money;  when 
commerce  was  encouraged  by  tying  its  hands  and  feet. 
This  policy  has  been  long  since  abandoned  by  enlightened 
nations.  Let  us  not  resume  it.  Let  us  have  no  discrimi- 
nations, either  of  exports  or  taxes.  The  Government  has 
no  power  to  make  them,  and  if  it  had  it  could  never  exer- 
cise the  power  without  injustice  and  general  disaster. 


20 

I  liave  endeavored  to  estal)lish  these  propositions  : 

I^irstly.  The  export  of  cotton  hv  collusion  between  the 
enemj'  and  neutrals,  hj  vessels  arriving  in.  ballast,  or  in 
any  way,  should  be  universally  denounced  and  opposed. 

Secondly.  The  importation  of  foreign  goods  brought  to 
our  ports  by  foreign  vessels,  deserves  all  the  encourage- 
ment we  can  give  it  by  return  cargoes  of  the  produce  they 
require. 

Thirdly.  The  similar  import  of  goods  by  our  own  mer- 
chants should  be  sustained  b}'  a  similar  supply  of  cotton, 
and  at  least  equal  approbation. 

Fourthly.  Foreign  vessels,  bringing  specie  for  cotton, 
like  the  Spanish  vessels  from  Cuba,  should  be  also  fur- 
nished wnth  cargoes. 

Fifthly.  Discriminations  in  the  non-exportation  policy 
are  of  dangerous  tendency.  It  should  embrace  all  pro- 
ducts alike. 

Sixthly.  If  any  such  policy  be  established,  it  must  be 
voluntary.  The  Confederate  Government  has  no  consti- 
tutional power  to  intermeddle  by  laying  embargoes  for 
political  purposes.  It  would  be  a  usurpation  of  power, 
and  produce  discord  and  dissension. 

I  need  not  say,  and  say  it  for  greater  caution  only, 
that  the  question  of  supplying  return  cargoes  of  cotton  to 
vessels  bringing  goods  or  specie,  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  the  question  of  sending  the  crop,  as  usual,  to  our  sea- 
ports. It  may  be  kept  in  Columbia,  Augusta,  or  on  the 
plantations,  and  be  quite  accessible  enough  for  all  commer- 
cial purposes.  Let  it  be  brought  to  the  coast  only  when 
required  hy  the  immediate  calls  of  trade. 

I  have  tried  to  treat  the  subject  temperately.  It  is  an 
occasion  that  requires  mutual  forbearance.  We  all  seek 
truth,  and  truth  only.  I  will  engage  in  no  controversy,  but 
content  myself  with  thus  stating,  without  urging,  my  opin- 
ions. 


pH8.5 


